107 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Fast "is this a problem?" answer for the quick Slack question — pattern-matches against your calibration. Use when the user says "is this a problem", "quick question", "can we do X", "do I need legal review for", "sanity check", or pastes a PM's question that needs a same-minute fine / needs a look / hold call.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; its docs-aware mode covers this variant) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening with living documentation. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan, one question at a time, challenging it against your project's existing domain model and glossary (CONTEXT.md), sharpening fuzzy terms, stress-testing with concrete scenarios, cross-referencing code, and updating CONTEXT.md + ADRs inline as decisions crystallise. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-with-docs-codex", "grill me against the docs then have codex review", "stress-test this against our domain model then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes in a project with established terminology/ADRs and wants alignment, documentation, AND a cross-model sanity check. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-with-docs (MIT). NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial changes.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; adds a Phase 0 research/recon pass + rebuilt interview) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan or design, one question at a time, recommending an answer for each and exploring the codebase when it can answer itself, until every branch of the decision tree is resolved. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-me-codex", "grill me then have codex review", "grill me and stress-test the plan", "interview me about this plan then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes (auth, schema, concurrency, migrations, payments) and wants both alignment AND a cross-model sanity check before implementation. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-me (MIT). For the docs-aware variant use /grill-with-docs-codex; if you already have a plan and want only the Codex review use /codex-review. NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial changes.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when the user asks to "set up conversion values so tROAS optimizes profit not orders", "map margin onto my purchase value", "build value rules for lead / phone / signup conversions", or "stop bidding to revenue when I care about profit"; defines and QAs the conversion VALUE model — per-conversion values, margin/net-value adjustment, static-vs-dynamic value rules, proxy values for non-revenue actions, and a value-vs-count sanity check — as a value-model spec plus a pre-launch value QA sheet. Not for whether the tag fires or UTMs are clean — use conversion-signal-qa; not for cross-platform double-count de-dup — use attribution-reconciler; not for scoring R1/R2 — that is a scored veto in ad-account-auditor. 付费广告转化价值建模/利润出价/价值规则QA
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Extract, suggest, and sync tags and categories for blog posts across all major CMS platforms. Supports WordPress REST API, Shopify GraphQL, Ghost Content API, Strapi REST/GraphQL, and Sanity GROQ. Generates tag suggestions from content analysis (keyword frequency, heading extraction, semantic grouping), enforces minimum post-count thresholds to prevent thin tag archives, and syncs taxonomy via authenticated API calls. Use when user says "tags", "categories", "taxonomy", "tag suggestions", "sync tags", "WordPress tags", "Shopify tags".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Covers the employment rules that carry real penalties — exempt and non-exempt classification, overtime and hours, employee versus contractor status, work authorization and recordkeeping, accommodation requests, and the notices and retention obligations that go with them. Use this to classify a role, review a contractor arrangement, respond to an accommodation request, work out what records to keep and for how long, or sanity-check a practice you inherited.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Consolidate freshness-gated newsjack signals and route them by client standing before angle generation. Collapses any remaining same-story duplicates, decides strong/partial/none standing with a journalist-shape sanity check, and sorts each story into pitch_ready, big_story (always-surfaced suggestion), or watch. Never writes angles or pitches, and never drops a fresh big story.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Review a bill of materials for cost, risk, and supply exposure — cost rollup, top-10 cost drivers, single-source and EOL risk, MOQ vs forecast mismatch, cost-down candidates, and tariff/logistics sensitivity. Use when asked to review a BOM, find cost-down opportunities, check component sourcing risk, or sanity-check BOM cost against target. Produces a structured BOM review with a cost driver Pareto, risk flags per line, and a prioritised cost-down list.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Sanity-check a greenhouse gas inventory before it goes into a report or gets audited. Use when asked to review a carbon footprint, check a GHG inventory, validate scope 1/2/3 numbers, explain a year-over-year emissions change, or prepare emissions data for assurance. Produces a boundary review, data-quality assessment, emission-factor sensitivity list, YoY bridge, and a fix-before-publishing list.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Decode an auto repair estimate — what each line actually is, which items are urgent vs upsell, and the questions that separate a fair shop from a fishing expedition. Use when someone asks 'is this repair quote fair', 'decode my mechanic's estimate', 'do I really need all this', or 'is the shop ripping me off'. Produces a line-by-line decode with urgency triage, parts/labor sanity checks, ranked red flags, and the exact questions to ask the shop before authorizing.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when scoping or sanity-checking a research question for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — fit, theory-drivenness, and feasibility. Decides whether the idea can earn a theoretical contribution; it does not build the theory itself (use amj-theory-development) or position the literature (amj-literature-positioning).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Visualises RNA-modification data with transcript-feature metagene plots (Guitar GuitarPlot; MetaPlotR; deepTools computeMatrix scale-regions), peak-centred heatmaps (ComplexHeatmap; deepTools plotHeatmap), IP-vs-input paired browser tracks (log2 IP/input bigWig via deepTools bamCompare; pyGenomeTracks; Gviz; IGV/UCSC track hubs), DRACH sequence-logo plots (ggseqlogo; MEME), feature-distribution stacked bars, and volcano/MA plots for differential modification. Establishes stop-codon enrichment in the metagene plot as the biological QC anchor for any MeRIP dataset (Dominissini 2012; Meyer 2012). Use when producing the canonical metagene plot with stop-codon enrichment as a QC anchor, building paired IP/input genome-browser tracks at single-locus resolution, plotting peak-centred heatmaps clustered by condition, summarising peak distribution across transcript features, generating DRACH motif logos as sanity checks, rendering volcano plots of differential m6A, or reproducing the stop-codon enrichment plot.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Assesses the quality and completeness of a genome annotation with BUSCO (conserved single-copy ortholog recovery), OMArk (proteome completeness, consistency, and contamination), CheckM2 (prokaryotic completeness/contamination), and a gene-set sanity panel (gene count, mono-exonic fraction, protein-length distribution, mRNA:gene ratio, coding density). Covers the assembly-BUSCO-vs-proteome-BUSCO diagnostic, what BUSCO-Duplicated really means, why gene count is a vanity metric, and the QC of transferred annotations. Use when judging whether an annotation is good enough to publish or submit, diagnosing a suspect annotation, or comparing annotation completeness across pipelines.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
When you want to integrate an external tool, API, MCP server, or service into a project — the wizard walks you through auth, config, env vars, client wrapper code, example usage, and an optional smoke test. Scoped to Next.js and Rails projects. Interactive Q&A — starts with the tool name, asks structured questions until the integration is specified, then scaffolds files. Examples — Stripe, Kit, Sanity, Notion, Neon, Supabase, Resend, Postmark, Twilio, Anthropic, OpenAI, Vercel Blob, custom internal APIs. For MCP servers, also handles the .mcp.json wiring. Triggers on "/toolify," "integrate X," "add X to this project," "wire up X," "set up the X integration," "hook up X," "connect X," "add MCP for X." Part of the -ify trifecta (skillify / toolify / loopify). NOT for adding new SKILL.md files — that's skillify. NOT for cron/agent loops — that's loopify.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Discover destinations served from any airport via Wikipedia. Sanity-check whether an airline flies a specific route, find regional service that fare tools miss, identify late-split-return airport options.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Build a throwaway prototype to flesh out a design before committing to it. Routes between two branches — a runnable terminal app for state/business-logic questions, or several radically different UI variations toggleable from one route. Use when the user wants to prototype, sanity-check a data model or state machine, mock up a UI, explore design options, or says "prototype this", "let me play with it", "try a few designs".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Designs, sanity-checks and reads out product experiments (A/B tests, holdouts, pre/post, geo and incrementality tests) and produces an experiment brief plus a readout with a ship / hold / replicate call. Use when you ask 'should we A/B test this', 'how long should the test run', 'is this result real', 'sample size', 'stat sig', 'SRM', 'holdout', 'our win rate is low', or need to grade an existing test plan or readout. Draws on 191 insights from 71 Lenny's Podcast guests, led by Ronny Kohavi, Ramesh Johari and Archie Abrams.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
This skill should be used as a mandatory final sanity check before git commit, PR creation, or declaring work done. Triggers on "commit", "push", "PR", "pull request", "done", "finished", "complete", "ship", "deploy", "ready to merge". Catches security vulnerabilities, logic errors, and business rule bugs that slip through despite passing tests.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when user wants to migrate content from another CMS (WordPress, Contentful, Strapi, Sanity, Webflow, etc.) to Payload CMS
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when a result is surprising, impossible, contradicts a sanity check, a pipeline fails, a model won't converge, or a replication fails - before adjusting anything
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Performs a deep code review of files, modules, a diff, or a branch - finding security vulnerabilities (mapped to OWASP Top 10:2025), correctness bugs, performance problems, and maintainability issues - and returns severity-ranked findings with evidence and concrete fixes. Use when the user asks to review, audit, or sanity-check code, asks "is this safe", "what's wrong with this", "find bugs", or wants a security or performance pass before shipping. For posting line comments on a GitHub pull request, use git-pr-reviewer.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。